As an aside, one of the funniest things I find in the book is when the authors TRY to be funny. In the first page of the Homology section, for example, they write: "Of course, pigs and humans did not inherit the bones themselves from their common ancestor. That would be ludicrous." And in a footnote, they add: "Not to mention borderline disgusting."

Hardy har har, Paul. You sure are a bunch of funny guys. So hip, so kewl, so with it. I suppose that's why your cool teenage hangout blog is doing so well, and why people like Dembski and Behe come off so well when they yuck it up on Comedy Central.

Here's some friendly advice for you'all, Paul ----- stop trying to be funny. You're all humorless tightasses. It just doesn't work.

Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents’, as well as Defendants’ argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.

"Many biologists before Darwin thought that these similarities (called "homologies") were due to a common plan or "archetype".

This one doesn't seem to be specifically covered in the Index to Creationist Claims, but the whole "common plan" or "common design" argument is a long-lived creationist argument:

Quote

"This idea that a fundamental similarity in structures is due to common descent is called homology. But this still-common idea is not in the slightest a proof of evolution. It is simply an assumption by those who reject creation.

Darwin revealed this was his position when he said some believe ‘that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan’. He finished that sentence by saying, ‘but this is not a scientific explanation.’3 He was therefore ruling out the possibility of creation based on a common plan by implying it was not scientific, so he wouldn’t believe it whether it was true or not."

Quote

"So-called homologous structures are no proof of common descent, so are no proof of evolution. Darwin’s approach—to reject the creation explanation as unscientific because you don’t want to believe it—is not rational. This is particularly so when the facts are readily explained as the product of a Designer who created each unique structure to fulfill a different purpose."

My argument is that the “common ancestry” explanation for homology has not been empirically demonstrated, so the “common design” explanation cannot be ruled out. (Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution -- A Response to Critics Pt 7"[URL=http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/12/icons_of_evolution_a_response_5.html

Quote

"The existence of similarities between organisms--whether in external morphology or internal biochemistry--is easily explained as the Creator's design of similar systems for similar functions, but such similarities are not explicable by common evolutionary descent."Henry Morris, "The Vanishing Case for Evolution", ICR Impact, June 1, 1986)

"Some modern biologists explain homology in another way. Brian Goodwin of the Open university says homology does not reflect a process of historical change, but instead reflects contraints imposed upon the structure of organisms by the laws of nature. Goodwin contends that the laws of nature dictate that a liquid, for example, has only a limited number of shapes it can take -- a spiralling funnel when going down the drain, a droplet when it falls, and so on. In the same way, says Goodwin, the laws of nature ensure that only a certain number of anatomical patterns are possible. Therefore, we should expect to see similarities in the anatomical structure of even different types of organisms."

This isn't addressed in the Index of Creationist Claims. I cite it here just to point out that Nelson and his ilk are either too stupid or too dishonest to differentiate between "homology" and "analogy".

"Contrary to these predictions, biologists are learning that homologous structures can be produced by different genes and may follow different developmental pathways."CB811 "Homologous structures are not produced by homologous genes"

"In another surprising twist, biologists have also discovered many cases in which the same genes help to produce different adult structures. Consider, for instance, the eyes of the squid, the fruit fly and the mouse (see figure 2:2). The fruit fly has a compound eye, with dozens of separate lenses. The squid and the mouse both have single-lens camera eyes, but they develop along very different pathways, and are wired differently from each other. Yet the same gene is involved in the development of all three of these eyes."

This one isn't addressed in the Creationist Claims Index either, though it is a subspecies of CB811. Nelson and his ilk, of course, are simply being dishonest by not mentioning that the common gene involved is a HOX gene, which doesn't regulate the detailed structure of the eye.

"Some scientists are skeptical that an undirected process like natural selection and mutation would have stumbled upon the same complex structure many different times."

This isn't specifically covered in the Index to Creationist Claims -- it's sort of a conflation of CB100 "mutations are rare", and CB 150 "Functional genetic sequences are too rare to evolve from one to another". I cite this sentence primarily to contrast it with the earlier sentence: " In the same way, says Goodwin, the laws of nature ensure that only a certain number of anatomical patterns are possible. Therefore, we should expect to see similarities in the anatomical structure of even different types of organisms." On page 43, we are told that body structures are tightly restricted by natural law to just a few possible SIMILAR STRUCTURES. Then, just five pages later, we are told that evolution faces a problem because mutations KEEP PRODUCING SIMILAR STRUCTURES. (sigh)

"This made the concept of homology circular, say many critics. If homology is defined as 'similarity due to common ancestry', then to say that homology provides evidence for common descent is to reason in a circle."CB810 "Homology cannot be evidence of ancestry if it is defined thus."

Indeed. It seems pretty apparent to me that EE was actually written *before* the DI's "teach the controversy" crapola fell flat on its ass in Ohio and Kansas. So now they're stuck with a "textbook" about a "controversy" that they can't teach.

But having already put all the effort and money into it, I guess they figure they have no choice but to try and sell enough copies to the rubes to make up for it.

"Contrary to these predictions, biologists are learning that homologous structures can be produced by different genes and may follow different developmental pathways."CB811 "Homologous structures are not produced by homologous genes"

"In another surprising twist, biologists have also discovered many cases in which the same genes help to produce different adult structures. Consider, for instance, the eyes of the squid, the fruit fly and the mouse (see figure 2:2). The fruit fly has a compound eye, with dozens of separate lenses. The squid and the mouse both have single-lens camera eyes, but they develop along very different pathways, and are wired differently from each other. Yet the same gene is involved in the development of all three of these eyes."

This one isn't addressed in the Creationist Claims Index either, though it is a subspecies of CB811. Nelson and his ilk, of course, are simply being dishonest by not mentioning that the common gene involved is a HOX gene, which doesn't regulate the detailed structure of the eye.

"Critics of the argument from molecular homology agree that the molecules in living things exhibit many remarkable similarities in sequence. They interpret this evidence differently, however. Critics argue that similarities may reflect common functional requirements, rather than a common evolutionary past. And they point out that some molecular evidence challenges common descent."

The same "common design" argument as in the previous chapter. Long a creationist staple.

"A 'family tree' based on anatomy may show one pattern of relationships, while a tree based on DNA or RNA may show quite another. . . . In fact, a family tree based on one protein may differ from a family tree based on a different protein."CB821 "Phylogenetic analyses are inconsistent."

"Based on his study of the different domains of life, Woese says life probably had multiple, independent starting points."

This one isn't specifically addressed in the Index of Creationist Claims. It's a variant of the standard creationist "created kinds" argument, CB901 and CB902.

This whole section appears to be the basis of Paul Nelson's always-forthcoming magnum opus disproving common descent. It seems to consist largely of "lateral gene transfer disproves common descent". It's not addressed specifically in the Index of Creationist Claims, and the stuff it is based on -- Woese's molecular studies, mostly -- are new enough that they don't have a long creationist history. However, it has appeared in recent creationist and ID tracts:

Quote

In particular, Woese recommends abandoning the idea that the universal common ancestor is a living organism. "The universal ancestor is not an entity, not a thing," wrote Woese in 1998, "it is a process." As Woese conceives it, that process did not involve organisms "in any conventional sense," but an interchange of genetic material in a complex primordial soup. He concludes: "The universal phylogenetic tree, therefore, is not an organismal tree at its base." (Jonathan Wells, Comments on the Majority's "Response to the Changes to the Science Curriculum Standards", August 1, 2005

Quote

In 1998, Woese wrote: “No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced.” He concluded that primitive organisms acquired many of their genes and proteins, not by Darwinian descent with modification, but by “lateral gene transfer” from other organisms. “The universal ancestor,”he wrote,” is not an entity, a thing,” but a community of complex molecules—a sort of primordial soup—from which different kinds of cells emerged independently.

"[Haeckel] formulated and popularized his famous 'Biogenetic Law', which states 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'."CB701.1 "Recapitulation theory is not supported"

"It turns out that Haeckel's drawings misrepresented the features of the embryos, exaggerating their apparent similaritites to support the argument for Common Descent."CB701 "Haeckel falsified his embryo pictures"

"These scientists accept that plants and animals of the Galapagos were transported or migrated to the islands and then adapted in some ways to their new environment. They point out, however, that migration and adaptation does not equal macroevolutionary change."CB902 "Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution"

"If Universal Common Descent is true, it must have a mechanism that can produce macroevolutionary change -- that can transform one type of animal into a fundamentally different type of animal. Yet critics note that the examples of mockingbirds in the Galapagos and fruit flies in the Hawaiian Islands show only small-scale variations in existing traits."CB901 "Macroevolution has never been observed", CB901.1 "Range of variation is limited within kinds", CB901.3 "Darwin's finches show only microevolution", CB110 "Microevolution selects only existing variation"

"Further, some geneticists think that these changes have occurred because the populations of these birds and fruit flies became isolated, and lost genetic information over time."CB932 "Some modern species are apparently degenerate, not higher forms"

"Large-scale macroevolutionary change requires the addition of new genetic information, not the loss of genetic information."CB102 "Mutations do not add new genetic information"

"For their part, dissenters will continue to point out that the evidence is completely consistent with other views of the history of life, in which small-scale changes in form and features do occur within separate but disconnected groups of organisms."CB901.1 "Range of variation is limited within kinds", CB902.1 "There are barriers to large changes".

(Note too that the "other views", of small changes within separate kinds, consist of creationism and intelligent design -- which the authors are too dishonest to point out.)

Re "If Universal Common Descent is true, it must have a mechanism that can produce macroevolutionary change -- that can transform one type of animal into a fundamentally different type of animal."

I wonder about that "argument". Don't most of the features of reptiles and mammals have homologs (is that the right word?) in amphibians, and even in fish? If that's the case, where is the "fundamental difference" that evolution "requires"? (And is that too many quote marks?)

Re "If Universal Common Descent is true, it must have a mechanism that can produce macroevolutionary change -- that can transform one type of animal into a fundamentally different type of animal."

I wonder about that "argument". Don't most of the features of reptiles and mammals have homologs (is that the right word?) in amphibians, and even in fish? If that's the case, where is the "fundamental difference" that evolution "requires"? (And is that too many quote marks?)

Henry

Who knows? Creationists have been blithering about "fundamentally different kinds" for forty years now, and no one STILL has any idea what the hell they are talking about.

Most critics of Darwin's argument would agree that nature can 'select' for successful variations or adaptations. Moust would also agree that natural selection can produce small-scale changes (Evolution #1). Nevertheless, critics contend that natural selection's power to change a species is limited; it does not have the almost boundless power the theory requires."CB901.1 "Range of variation is limited within kinds", CB902 "Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution"

"For the critic, the question is not whether sheep can become woollier sheep; the question is whether sheep can eventually become sheepdogs . . . or horses . . . or camels. In other words, can natural selection transform one form of life into a fundamentally different form of life?"CB901.1 "Range of variation is limited within kinds"

"No new traits arose. The only thing that changed was the proportion of big beaks to small beaks."CB110 "Microevolution selects only existing variation"

"Nowhere in the finch beak story does a new family, genus, or even species emerge."CB901.3 "Darwin's finches show only microevolution", CB901.2 "No new phyla, classes, or orders have appeared"

"Critics question whether the peppered moth story shows that microevolution can eventually produce large-scale change. They point out that nothing new emerged."CB601 "The traditional peppered moth story is no longer supportable", CB110 "Microevolution selects only existing variation", CB904 "No entirely new features have evolved".

"So what about all those amazing pictures of camouflaged moths on tree trunks? Most of these moths were placed on the tree trunks by the researchers themselves. Some are actually pictures of dead moths that have been pinned or glued to the trunk!"CB601.1 "Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks, and pictures of them were faked"

"Just like a computer program, DNA contains the biological equivilent of lines of computer code."CB180 "The genetic code is a language"

"So, biological information is stored in DNA. But where does new biological information come from? Critics of neo-Darwinism contend that contemporary evolutionary theory doesn't have an adequate answer for this question. They say that the examples of artificial selection and microevolution in particular do not demonstrate the ability to add new biological ifnormation into a population."CI010 "There is a law of conservation of information:, CB102 "Mutations do not add information"

"But these traits -- whether darw wings in moths or longer beaks in finches -- are not new. The capacity to produce these traits was present all along in the gene pool of the original (large) population."CB110 "Microevolution selects only existing variation", CB904 "No entirely new features have evolved", CB102 "Mutations do not add information"

"Here's the rub; producing new organs or new body plans requires new lines of genetic code -- more information, not less. Not surprisingly, many scientists argue that small-scale microevolutionary change cannot be extrapolated to explain large-scale macroevolutionary innovation."CB902 "Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution", CB 102 "Mutations do not add information"

"These critics would say that natural selection works well as an editor, but not an author. It has a demonstrated capacity to weed out the failures from among what already exists, but it has not been shown to generate new biological informaiton or structures."CB110 "Microevolution selects only existing variations"

Apparently there are "supplemental materials" to go with the textbook as well. These were recently previewed at a symposium at Biola (no religious roots there, of course). Here is part of a blurb for a "pre-symposium consultation" for those who teach biology at the college level

Quote

Examine the auxiliary materials (PowerPoint shows, teaching tips, etc.) that accompany the new Explore Evolution curriculum and consider how they might improve your classroom performance. The supplementary textbook Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism does not teach about the theory of intelligent design. You may wish to introduce ID theory through other resources (both pro and con) that we will discuss in the optional early-bird session from 10:00 a.m. - 11:15 a.m. before our main consultation on teaching evolutionary biology begins at 1:00 p.m. Even if you think that the arguments against neo-Darwinism are inconsequential compared to the case for this majority viewpoint, you will find the supplementary textbook Explore Evolution a useful tool to spark discussion in the classroom. Regardless of your professional opinion on these matters, you will find it difficult to ignore the case both for and against neo-Darwinism that is so winsomely and accurately conveyed in Explore Evolution. If you include this new supplement alongside a standard textbook, your students will have exposure to all sides of the debate as expressed in the words of their most qualified proponents.

"But critics point out that bacterial cells either have a penicillinase gene, or they don't. They do not develop such a gene when penicillin is introduced. Consequently, critics say that the enzyme defense system tells us nothing about whether mutations can produce novel forms of life."CB110 "Microevolution selects only existing variation"

"Critics of neo-Darwinism acknowledge that point mutations can give bacterial cells resistance to some antibiotics. They agree that when natural selection acts upon such mutations, it can produce small-scale (microevolutionary) change. However, they do not think that mutations like those that cause antiobiotic resistance can go on to produce major (macroevolutionary) changes in organisms."CB102 "Mutations do not add information", CB902.1 "There are barriers to large change"

"The cell cannot endure an unlimited number of mutation-induced changes at these critical active sites. At some point, the cell's information processing system will be damaged so badly that it stops functioning altogether. For this reason, multiple mutations at active sites inevitably do more harm than good."CB120 "Genetic load from mutations would make populations unviable"

"And because mutations at these critical active sites coem witha fitness cost, critics of neo-Darwinism argue that additional mutations of the same kind are more likely to destroy essential functions than to produce fundamentally new forms of life. This strongly suggests that there are limits to the amount of change that such mutations can produce."CB120 "Genetic load from mutations would make populations unviable", CB902.1 "There are barriers to large change", CB102 "Mutations do not add information"

"They claim that mutations to many separate proteins are necessary to produce major biological change. Yet critics insist that mutation-induced antiobiotic resistance provides no support for this claim either. They note that mutations that cause antibiotic resistance only change a small site on the surface of a relatively large protein molecule and that these mutations do not alter the overall structure of the protein. Since the kind of mutations that produce antibiotic resistance do not change the structure of the protein components of the organism, they will not fundamentally change the organization of the organism or the organism as a whole."CA350 "No gradual biochemical models have been published", CB150 "Functional genetic sequences are too rare to evolve from one to another"

"Small, limited mutations (like those that produce antibiotic resistance) can eb beneficial in certain environments, but they don't produce enough change to produce fundamentally new forms of life. Major mutations can fundamentally alter an animal's anatomy and structure, but these mutations are always harmful or outright elthal."CB101 "Most mutations are harmful", CB101.2 "Mutations do not produce new features"

(There is also a discussion of Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster", which no serious evolutionary biologist today either supports or asserts. As with in the extensive list of previous creationist tracts which drag Goldschmidt into the discussion, Nelson and his ilk have only mentioned it to dishonestly and deceptively erect an irrelevant strawman which they can happily set fire to.)

At this blog post someone who attended the aforementioned EE symposium at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (some of the folks who put the fun in fundamentalism) gushes about meeting Jonathan Wells at that shindig. He also notes

Quote

Probably the best piece of information I gained today was Jonathan Wells' recommendation for a high school and AP/college biology textbook. He said that although the texts still contain evolution, most of the "icons" have been removed, largely as a result of his work.Campbell and Reese (sic), Biology (7th edition)

Ironically, these authors are two of the authors of the textbook that I sent to FtK, and which she blasted as being way too full of evolution and its assumptions!

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. - Pattiann Rogers

"As it turns out, some scientific critics of neo-Darwinism have recently gone on the offensive. They are making a new argument based upon some new discoveries about the complexity of life -- structures in the cell that have many intricate and interconencted parts. Some scientists say that these structures cast doubt on the creative power of Natural Selection, because they canot be explained by numerous, small, successive changes."

(This one isn't listed in the Index of Creationist Claims. I cite it here only to note that this "new argument" is nothing more than the same old "intelligent design theory" that IDers have been crowing about for ten years now -- which the authors of EE are, naturally, too dishonest and evasive to point out.)

This entire chapter centers soley on Behe and his flagellum. The entire chapter, then, falls under:

CB200.1 "Bacterial flagella are irreducibly complex"

And as a further addition, we have:

"Research has shown that the motor only functions after all 30 of the motor's protein parts are in place."

CB200.1.1 "The flagellum has 30 or so unique (non-homologous) proteins"

"All we can say now is that some finches leave more offspring (our definition of 'survival') because they produce and sustain more eggs (our definition of 'fittest'). Cause and effect have flowed into each other, which makes the reasoning circular."CA500 " 'Survival of the fittest' is a tautology"

(I have to note here that I was very very happy to see this old chestnut in EE --- I haven't seen this "argument" in literally 20 years, and am happy to see Paul dig it out and dust it off. I am assuming this nugget came from Nelson because the younger IDers have probbaly forgotten all about it by now. Snicker, giggle.)

What Fossils Can't Tell You

This entire chapter is a rehash of Gish's "Evolution? The Fossils Say NO!".

It deals with two topics, both covered in the Index of Creationist claims -- the reptile to mammal transition (CC215 "There are gaps between reptiles and mammals"), and the reptile to bird transition (CC214 "There are gaps between reptiles and birds")

EE concludes with a section titled "The Nature of Dissent in Science", which is a whine about how nobody ever presents "their side", and therefore falls under:

CA325 "Creationists are prevented from publishing in science journals"

Thus endeth my look at "Explore Evolution".

To sum up, it consists of nothing but the same old crap that creationist/IDers have been putting out for forty years now, and it won't survive ten minutes in court. If this book ever goes to trial, I want a front rwo seat --- I want to see, with my own eyes, Paul Nelson attempt to testify, with a straight face, that this book has nothing at all whatseover to do with either creation "science" or intelligent design "theory".

The only surprise, to me, is that the book doesn't mention the Isaac Newton of Information Theory or his world-shattering discoveries about CSI and the EF anywhere.

Perhaps that's because Behe and Minnich had the balls to testify at Dover, and Dembski didn't.

Is anybody else noticing that, apart from the actual content of the book, the writing itself seems really quite bad? They say the book is aimed at college or AP bio students, but it sounds like they're talking to twelve-year-olds.

Is anybody else noticing that, apart from the actual content of the book, the writing itself seems really quite bad? They say the book is aimed at college or AP bio students, but it sounds like they're talking to twelve-year-olds.

Yes. I think it's deliberate on their part ---- they are telling us that it's aimed at college students, because colleges are private institutions and are not covered under the separation of church and state. But talking to students who already know about evolution (and who already know that creationism is crap) doesn't help them. Their real target, as with "Pandas", is elementary public schools.

It's hard to tell if they even HAVE a strategy. The recent Biola event seems to have been primarily targeted to Xtians and home schoolers. And as a college biology instructor, I certainly haven't heard about this book from the regular channels (publisher's reps). But they probably don't have a lot of reps, because they don't publish much except for press releases... And there was the pre-symposium "consultation" at the Biola shindig, aimed at college instructors. Finally, if they want to break into the Xtian home-schooling market, they will have to displace the two-volume tomes from Bob Jones University, which are blatantly Biblical. I don't think a lot of Xtian home-schooling parents are going to spring for an expensive, slim, and non-Biblical specialty textbook on evolution alone. Maybe I'm wrong, and i certainly am not privy to the advertising in that market, but it seems unlikely to me.

Perhaps the market is small Xtian colleges, where the BJU books are not useful, and all of the main-stream textbooks are full of that materialist stuff that needs to be rebutted. Again, i am not privy to the marketing material for that market either, but it would seem to be a niche that they can exploit.

Perhaps they don't really have a coherent marketing strategy for this thing, but that would be surprising, since marketing is definitely their strong suit.

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. - Pattiann Rogers